States have apparently been the only ones discussing strategies to operationalize the
revenue-sharing mechanism. In fact, the Norwegian government has released plans
to design a model in which taxpayers and not oil companies would pay the royalties,
so as to foster prospection in areas father away from land. Costs in connection to the
royalties due to the ISA Fund would be, thus, deducted in the final calculation of the
petroleum tax in Norway.
108 Despite the fact that this is the only case, up to now, in
which exploitation beyond 200 nm is expected to take place, thus far, it is not
ludicrous to expect other states to reach farther out offshore for petroleum and gas.
Secondly, the potential for non-living resource exploitation is also present off the
Brazilian coast, as highlighted in the ISA Technical Study no. 5. Pursuant to that
report, “with sediment thickness in excess of 5 km in water depths between 2,000m
and 4,500m, Brazil has a very real potential of hydrocarbon exploitation in its outer
continental shelf.”
109 In addition to that, the methodologies used suggest that “more
than a third of the Brazilian continental shelf beyond 200 nm offers, in theory,
potential and accessibility for hydrocarbon exploitation”. Were it not enough, the
study also reports potential for polymetallic sulfides around the hot-spot volcanic
Trindade and Martin Vaz Islands. Further details on Brazilian national assessments
of non-living resources of the outer continental, and a comparison with the ISA
expectations is drawn in Chap. 10.
Given the expectancy of further exploration and potential exploitation of outer
continental shelf resources worldwide, a multitude of issues may arise in close
connection to the environmental regulation of activities on and above the outer
continental shelf. As such, it is urgent to systematize the bulk of coastal state’s
powers and duties within the outer continental shelf, as well as the influence of
stricter regulations and standards approved, for instance, by the ISA into coastal
states outer continental shelf activities. Much of the discussed above merit further
scrutiny, a task reserved for the appropriate chapter on the coastal state’s environmental jurisdiction over the continental shelf and the interfaces with the high seas
and the Area.
categorically emphasized that the resolution of unexpected issues during the implementation of Art.
82 is primarily the responsibility of coastal states, the ISA having no a priori role. That does not
prohibit the state from seeking the Authority for advice.
108 Alister Doyle and Nerijus Adomaitis. “Norway plans tax breaks for remotest Arctic oilfields”. In
energy-norway-exclusive/exclusive-norway-plans-tax-breaks-for-remotest-arctic-oilfields-lettersidUSKCN1BG2CE. Accessed 08 April 2020.
109 ISA (2010), p. 46.
134
5 Jurisdictional Intersections Between the Continental Shelf and Other Maritime. . .
revenue-sharing mechanism. In fact, the Norwegian government has released plans
to design a model in which taxpayers and not oil companies would pay the royalties,
so as to foster prospection in areas father away from land. Costs in connection to the
royalties due to the ISA Fund would be, thus, deducted in the final calculation of the
petroleum tax in Norway.
108 Despite the fact that this is the only case, up to now, in
which exploitation beyond 200 nm is expected to take place, thus far, it is not
ludicrous to expect other states to reach farther out offshore for petroleum and gas.
Secondly, the potential for non-living resource exploitation is also present off the
Brazilian coast, as highlighted in the ISA Technical Study no. 5. Pursuant to that
report, “with sediment thickness in excess of 5 km in water depths between 2,000m
and 4,500m, Brazil has a very real potential of hydrocarbon exploitation in its outer
continental shelf.”
109 In addition to that, the methodologies used suggest that “more
than a third of the Brazilian continental shelf beyond 200 nm offers, in theory,
potential and accessibility for hydrocarbon exploitation”. Were it not enough, the
study also reports potential for polymetallic sulfides around the hot-spot volcanic
Trindade and Martin Vaz Islands. Further details on Brazilian national assessments
of non-living resources of the outer continental, and a comparison with the ISA
expectations is drawn in Chap. 10.
Given the expectancy of further exploration and potential exploitation of outer
continental shelf resources worldwide, a multitude of issues may arise in close
connection to the environmental regulation of activities on and above the outer
continental shelf. As such, it is urgent to systematize the bulk of coastal state’s
powers and duties within the outer continental shelf, as well as the influence of
stricter regulations and standards approved, for instance, by the ISA into coastal
states outer continental shelf activities. Much of the discussed above merit further
scrutiny, a task reserved for the appropriate chapter on the coastal state’s environmental jurisdiction over the continental shelf and the interfaces with the high seas
and the Area.
categorically emphasized that the resolution of unexpected issues during the implementation of Art.
82 is primarily the responsibility of coastal states, the ISA having no a priori role. That does not
prohibit the state from seeking the Authority for advice.
108 Alister Doyle and Nerijus Adomaitis. “Norway plans tax breaks for remotest Arctic oilfields”. In
energy-norway-exclusive/exclusive-norway-plans-tax-breaks-for-remotest-arctic-oilfields-lettersidUSKCN1BG2CE. Accessed 08 April 2020.
109 ISA (2010), p. 46.
134
5 Jurisdictional Intersections Between the Continental Shelf and Other Maritime. . .